Dismissed¶38

Subhash Kakkar and Anr. v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Aug 2025CWP/18256/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Third MACP financial upgradation denied; Postman appointment through limited departmental competitive examination held to be promotion, not direct recruitment; interpretation of the word "appointment" in a promotion order; parity plea (Sardara Singh) rejected - wrong benefits cannot be perpetuated; CAT Chandigarh order 03.10.2019 upheld; writ petition dismissed following Ishwar Dass v. Union of India, OA No. 63/93/2016, decided 21.02.2019.

What did the court decide?

Nothing was brought on record showing that the post of Postman was advertised to be filled by direct recruitment; an examination can be prescribed to test eligibility for promotion, and the petitioner failed to show that his appointment as Postman was direct recruitment rather than promotional appointment. ¶22

Subhash Kakkar and Anr. Vs Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's appointment as Postman secured through the limited departmental competitive examination is a direct/fresh appointment entitling him to the 3rd MACP financial upgradation, or is a promotional appointment. +2 more

¶14

Court's answer

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The word "appointment" appearing in a promotion order does not denote direct recruitment, since appointment can be by promotion as well as by direct recruitment; the petitioner's interpretation is incorrect and unacceptable.

¶29

Key takeaways

The identical issue stands concluded: the Tribunal's order dated 21.02.2019 held that the department test was provided for promotion and the promotion cannot be treated as direct recruitment to confer the 3rd MACP, and that judgment has been upheld by this Court, which fact has gone unrebutted.ratio¶27
Even if a benefit was granted to some other employee against the rules, it cannot be extended to another ineligible person so as to perpetuate the illegality; further, the parity contention regarding Sardara Singh was not noticed or argued before the Tribunal.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court, CWP-18256-2020 (O&M), decided 13.08.2025 (Harsimran Singh Sethi and Vikas Suri, JJ., oral): Dismissing the writ petition challenging the order dated 03.10.2019 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, the Court held that appointment to the post of Postman secured through the limited departmental competitive examination is a promotional appointment, not direct recruitment, since an examination can be prescribed to test eligibility for promotion and the post was not shown to have been advertised for direct recruitment. The word "appointment" in a promotion order does not convert the promotion into direct recruitment. Relying on Ishwar Dass versus Union of India and others (OA No. 63/93/2016, decided 21.02.2019), already upheld by this Court and unrebutted, the Court rejected the claim to the 3rd MACP financial upgradation, and held that a benefit wrongly granted to one employee against the rules cannot be extended to an ineligible person to perpetuate the illegality. Pending civil miscellaneous application disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

204

¶3

CWP-18256-2020 (O&M) Decided on : 13.08.2025

¶4

SUBHASH KAKKAR AND ANR

¶5

. .Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH AND ORS

¶8

. . . Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

¶10

PRESENT: Mr. Satbir Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate Senior Panel Counsel-UOI for respondents No. 2 to 4

¶12

¶13

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

¶14

In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 03.10.2019 (Annexure P-14) passed by the respondent No. 1-Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (herein after referred to Tribunal), by which, the claim of the petitioner that he was promoted to the post of Postman by way of the limited departmental competitive examination so as to treat the said post as a fresh one so as to grant him the 3^rd MACP has been rejected.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that once, the petitioner has competed for the post of Postmen after appearing in a

¶16

RIYA 2025.08.19 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CWP-18256-2020 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

competitive examination, the said appointment of the petitioner cannot be treated as a promotion so as to deny the 3^rd financial up-gradation to him, hence, the non consideration of the said fact by the Tribunal while passing the order dated 03.10.2019, is causing prejudice prejudice to the petitioner therefore, the same may kindly be set-aside.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the said issue has already been finalized upto this Court as, similar claim raised in OA No. 63/93/2016, titled as Ishwar Dass versus Union of India and others, decided on 21.02.2019 wherein it has been held that the process of competitive examination adopted for promotion to the post of Postman is not a direct recruitment but is only a process envisaged for promotion to the post of Postman and the said judgment passed in Ishwar Dass’s case (supra) has already been upheld by this Court.

¶21

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance.

¶22

Nothing evident has been brought to the notice of this Court to show that the post of the Postman was advertised by the department concerned to be filled by way of direct recruitment. In required situation, an examination can also be prescribed for seeking the eligibility for the promotion to a particular post. In the present case also, the petitioner has not been able to show this Court that his appointment as a Postman was rather a direct recruitment and not a promotional appointment.

¶23

6 Further, the same issue has already been decided by the Tribunal in order dated 21.02.2019 that the department test was provided for the promotion to the post of Postal Assistant, hence, the said promotion cannot be treated as a direct recruitment so as to grant the benefit of 3^rd

¶24

RIYA 2025.08.19 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CWP-18256-2020 (O&M)

¶26

-3-

¶27

MACP. The said judgment has already been upheld by this Court, which fact has also gone unrebutted.

¶28

The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the word used in the promotion order of the petitioner is “appointment” , hence, the same has to be related to the direct appointment of the petitioner.

¶29

The said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is fallacious. The appointment can be by way of promotion as well as by the direct recruitment ,hence, merely that the word “appointment” has been mentioned in the promotion order does not denote that the said appointment is by way of direct recruitment, hence, the interpretation of the same by the petitioner is incorrect and the same cannot be accepted.

¶30

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that another similar situated employee, namely, Sardara Singh has also been granted the same benefit as is being claimed by the petitioner in the present petition.

¶31

The said contention has not been noticed or argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Tribunal and nothing has come on record to show that the same was agitated. Even otherwise, in case, anybody has been granted the similar benefits against the rules, the same cannot be extended to the other ineligible person so as to perpetuate the illegality if so, already committed by the department.

¶32

No other arguments have been raised.

¶33

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances and as the similar issue raised in the present petition, has already been upheld upto this Court, that too contrary to the plea being raised by the petitioner, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and

¶34

RIYA 2025.08.19 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

CWP-18256-2020 (O&M)

¶36

-4-

¶37

circumstances of the present case.

¶38